Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday April 22, 2011 @08:40AM
from the celebrate-by-destroying-a-universe dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Since last night, the Large Hadron Collider is officially the most powerful accelerator in the world. While a record energy level had been reached last year, the new luminosity level, surpassing Fermilab's capabilities, is a new achievement. 'Higher intensity means more data, and more data means greater discovery potential,' as CERN Director General Rolf Heuer says."

There is no such thing as nuclear waste, everything that comes out of a used fuel rod is extremely useful, rare and precious and very expensive.

If it is really so useful in practice, why is so much in "temporary" storage after years and years with the amounts stored growing ever larger? Why have the U.S., Japan and many other countries "re-racked" their fuel ponds to make room for more at spacing closer than what the original designs required for safety?

As of November 2010, Fukushima Daiichi had 1760 TONS of spent fuel in storage, using 84% of capacity. (That's taking re-racking into account)

Hmmmm, so some of that valuable waste can be recycled into kitchen countertops.... sounds like more WSJ junk science to me. The author of a recent WSJ piece that was story here (possibly the same guy?) was on the BBC explaining that boric acid was used to clean debris from the water jets used for cooling in reactors. Wrong. Boron and boron compounds are used because they absorb neutrons which helps to stop fission in a quantity of nuclear material that would otherwise go critical (resulting in much more

Interesting enough the lead scientist was wearing a monitoring device over his left eye. When the power level was surpassed he announced the achievement to the entire world. Video here [youtube.com]...

OOI as someone who has no connection with the LHC and doesn't even know much physics beyond a few modules as part of a mathematics degree, are the scientists working with it particularly bright? My understanding has been that, so far, it's a very high maintenance (albeit necessary) way of checking various existing theories in the mound of increasingly untested theoretical physics. IOW, it's more of an engineering feat than a scientific one. Or are unexpected observations being made leading to new physics?

My understanding has been that, so far, it's a very high maintenance (albeit necessary) way of checking various existing theories in the mound of increasingly untested theoretical physics. IOW, it's more of an engineering feat than a scientific one. Or are unexpected observations being made leading to new physics?

Um. How are they supposed to be able to tell ahead of time when unexpected things [google.com] will happen?

I wondered whether they're being made, not whether they're hoping/expecting to make them. Although certain exercises are more likely to lead to new discoveries than others, and there's a difference between exploring new ideas as you develop theories and merely verifying an existing body of work.

Finding all of the existing physics is important as it helps calibrate the instrument and gives confidence it is working as expected.

I've been spending some time on arXiv looking at LHC related papers. So far they are saying, "No new physics beyond the standard model has been detected." WRT the Higgs, it hasn't been detected yet either. Tighter constraints have been put on it's mass - Due to the combined efforts of the Tevatron, LHC , LEP2 and DZERO. It's very early though. Experts in the field say w

Well, since there is no way to predict if a new mathematics PhD will ever generate any important new mathematics, why are we supporting anyone to get a PhD in mathematics? Most math PhDs just use what has already been proven, so they are only checking existing proofs anyway. What use would new proofs be even if they are created?

All I'm doing is applying your argument about physics to your domain, mathematics. I'm confident that you will now question math PhD programs, because application of your argument

Anyway, comparing the investment in mathematics PhDs with one of the most expensive pieces of scientific experimentation kit ever built is just silly. No group of mathematicians(*) in a particular field has ever demanded a budget of $9 billion.

(*) We do not include economists, even though they have an at least passing notion of numbers and freshman algebra and calculus. If we did, I'd concede the argument immediately, as economology is the biggest exploiter

OOI as someone who has no connection with the LHC and doesn't even know much physics beyond a few modules as part of a mathematics degree, are the scientists working with it particularly bright? My understanding has been that, so far, it's a very high maintenance (albeit necessary) way of checking various existing theories in the mound of increasingly untested theoretical physics. IOW, it's more of an engineering feat than a scientific one. Or are unexpected observations being made leading to new physics?

Where would Theoretical Physics and Pure Mathematics be without Engineering? You know, Applied Physics and Mathematics that tests whether theories are all BS.

Bright enough to know that the LHC has been the most powerful accelerator for a while. Power is energy per unit time, with a beam energy >3.5 times that of the Tevatron we need less that a third of the luminosity to beat the Tevatron in terms of power. This press release was about breaking the luminosity record i.e. the number of protons per area per second which is not the same as power.

So was the Bell X-1 designed to through the sound barrier, the Vostok 1 to enter Earth orbit, Apollo 11 designed to land on the Moon,... and all were celebrated as achievements when they actually did it. Until now the LHC was the most powerful accelerator on paper, now it is the most powerful accelerator. It is news (for nerds), live with it.

They're attempting to probe the world of particle physics at energies we've not been able to previously. Particle physics is energy-dependent. The higher the energy you pump into it, the more you'll be able to learn -- chiefly because there are very nearly certainly particles with high masses, and from the only equation anyone seems to know (E=mc^2) a high mass is a very high energy. To create these particles and study them we have to push to such extreme energies. Without it we've no way of knowing even if the standard model of particle physics is right (hopefully it's not), let alone whether anything like supersymmetry exists (hopefully not), or whether it's something totally unexpected (hopefully).

2) "They use it like a toy."

Knowing quite a few people who are working with ATLAS I can assure you that using it as a toy is the last thing they're doing. This is very, very serious. It's very big money that's gone into it, and with that comes a massive sense of responsibility -- and accountability to the people who funded it, which would be the public.

3) "Nothing of value has come of it that I've read about. I know research takes time, but they're just data collecting."

You seem to be under the impression that not much data is needed. Unfortunately the decay channels into the new particles the LHC is looking for are pretty rare, so an enormous amount of data must be generated to beat down statistical noise and actually see those decays. If it helps, the LHC also has some extremely sophisticated filters pre-selecting the most interesting data that comes pouring off the detectors. Without it the hard drives would be swamped and filled within a day or so. This is very serious business and an enormous amount of work has gone into it. Patience is absolutely necessary with this. The follow-on accelerator (if there ever is one) will need even more patience. Also, there are currently internal hints and rumours -- and that's all it is -- that a weak signal at 115GeV has been detected. That's right on a predicted mass for the Higg's... but unfortunately the decay to photons is extraordinarily strong compared to expectation. This is only about 3 sigma at the minute so we shouldn't take much from it, but if it's confirmed (which will need more data) then it immediately goes against the standard model. If it's a Higg's, the decay is excruciatingly strong and will not only rule out the standard model but also the minimally supersymmetric standard model, although other supersymmetric models can account for it if they're really, really contrived -- ultimately this means that the whole of high-energy particle physics would be in peril. If it's *not* a Higg's then it breaks a lot of things and particularly the standard model, although supersymmetric models might have a better ride. Or, of course, it could be statistical noise or a poor analysis -- nothing's been made properly public about it and it's not even coming from ATLAS itself but from a small group within ATLAS (which is a huge collaboration). Regardless, to test this we need data. What did you think LHC would do, smash some particles together and leave some tracks in a bubble chamber for everyone to point at and shout "THAT'S A HIGGS!"? Of course they're "just" data collecting. What else are they meant to do?

4) "What distinguishes this collider from any other collider in the world?"

Seriously? Have you been living under a rock? *It runs at a much higher energy*. That's what distinguishes the LHC from the Tevatron, which is its nearest rival. Particle physics is all about reaching high energies. To use a tired and shitty old car analogy, what you've just said is "What distinguishes a Formula 1 car from my clapped out old Model T Ford?"

5) "What do they get from building this machine that they wouldn't from another one?"

What? You're basically suggesting that... they build another machine? What would be the point in that? You'd just end up with... the LHC, somewhere other than C

Then we'd have to roll all the way back to either 1970 or 1949 depending how extreme you'd want to be when gutting particle physics, and start totally fresh. That would be *AMAZING* and I want it so badly.

This last comment surprised me. I'd always assumed those more or less on the inside would be more excited to *confirm* the standard model rather than turn it on its head. Personally, I think, as a distant observer of physics, i'd be a little bit disappointed if

WTF are these guys doing with this thing? They use it like a toy. Nothing of value has come of it that I've read about. I know research takes time, but they're just data collecting. What distinguishes this collider from any other collider in the world? What do they get from building this machine that they wouldn't from another one? I know this one is bigger... Does that mean more resolution? Was the extra resolution necessary?

Toy, experiment -- whats the difference?

But the main thing is that you measure the constituents that make up this world, ask yourself if there is value in knowing the weight, volume and speed of something.

What is being done is allowing for greater precision when making, well, anything.

And the less obvious benefit is that basically, MRI imaging, and all of these fancy things you get at a hospital was once bleeding edge physics.
An MRI machine is essentially a detector, and in this sense its a double

To be pedantic, the most powerful CW proton accelerator in the world is IIRC at Paul Scherrer Institute. Most powerful pulsed source is SNS at Oak Ridge both produce about a MW I think. LHC is highest luminosity which is different.